2025 PLP 2660 (YLR)

Abher Gul Khan, J.

Through this revision petition, petitioner has challenged the vires of judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed by learned Magistrate Section.30, Narowal whereby he, on culmination of trial in case FIR No210/2019 registered under section 324 and 337F(ii) P.P.C at P.S. City. Narowal, was convicted and sentenced as under:- Under section 324 P.P.C. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years ars with fine of Rs.25,000 and in case of non-payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Under section 337F(ii) P.P.C. for causing injury No.1 To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment as Tazir and to pay daman amount of Rs.75,000/- to the injured. Under section 337F(ii) P.P.C. for causing injury No.2 To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment as Tazir and to pay daman amount of Rs.25,000/- to the injured. Under section 337F(ii) P.P.C. for causing injury No.3 To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment as Tazir and to pay daman amount of Rs.25,000/- to the injured. Under section 337F(ii) P.P.C. for causing injury No.4 To undergo three months rigorous imprisonment as Tazir and to pay daman amount of Rs.25,000/- to the injured. Benefit of section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate Section. 30 Narowal which was finally decided by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal who vide judgment dated 02.05.2025 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the conviction and sentence awarded to him.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Precisely the facts giving rise to the criminal case as narrated in complaint Exh.PA which transformed into FIR (Exh.PD) are that on 06.05.2019 at about 07.00 p.m. complainant (PW.1) went to the house of his sister namely Tasneem and when he entered the house, he heard commotions of his nephew namely Muhammad Waseem from rooftop. Complainant along with his nephew namely Muhammad Hassan rushed to the rooftop and saw that accused Rajesh Masih was inflicting injuries to the injured Muhammad Waseem on his neck with knife. The complainant and Khalid Mehmood tried to rescue the injured and apprehend the accused but he extended threats of dire consequences and decamped therefrom while leaving his motorcycle. The injured was taken to DHQ Hospital Narowal from where he was referred to Lahore General Hospital. Motive behind the occurrence was demand of the injured who asked for the return of Rs. 10000/-which he lent to the accused.

5. It is observed that regarding the occurrence which took place on 06.05.2019 at about 07.00 p.m., FIR was got registered on 07.05.2019 at 10.15 p.m. that is with the delay of 01 day, 03 hours and 15 minutes without any cogent explanation. In this view of the matter, the delay of about twenty eight hours in lodging the FIR in the peculiar circumstances of the case is significant and persuades the Court to take a cautious approach while evaluating the prosecution evidence in arriving at a just decision. Reliance is placed upon the case reported as Muhammad Jahangir and another v. The State and others (2024 SCMR 1741), wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan held as under:- "........perusal of record reveals that FIR was lodged after an unexplainable delay of 3 hours despite the fact that the distance of the police station from the place of occurrence was 5 km. The time of occurrence is around 05:00/05:30 pm and the matter is reported at 08:30 p.m. The complainant had a bike that he used to go to the police station. This delay has not been encountered through plausible explanation by the prosecution." Similarly, the complaint (Exh.PA) on the basis of which FIR (Exh.PD) was got registered signifies the fact that injured received injuries on his neck at the time of occurrence, however, complainant while recording his statement as PWI further clarified that when the injured Muhammad Waseem was shifted to DHQ Hospital Narowal, there PWs also noticed injuries on his back, however, the MLC of the injured is crystal clear of the fact that injured sustained four injuries and locales of these injuries also do not coincide with the narrations of the witnesses of ocular account. It is settled principle of law that slightest conflict in the medical and ocular account totally ruins the case of the prosecution and if any reference is needed that can be made to the case reported as Abdul Jabbar and another v. The State (2019 SCMR 129) wherein the Supreme Court of Pakistan while dilating upon inconsistency between medical ocular evidence observed as under:- "It is the settled principle of law that once a single loophole is observed in a case presented by the prosecution much less glaring conflict in the ocular account and medical evidence or for that matter where presence of eye-witnesses is not free from doubt, the benefit of such loophole/ lacuna in the prosecution case automatically goes in favour of an accused." The depositions of eye-witnesses were also badly shaken on the ground that though they claimed that upon their arrival, accused while brandishing the knife ran towards left side of the house, however, complainant during cross-examination himself admitted that there were no stairs on that side. Now, the question of pivotal importance arises that how petitioner escaped unhurt after taking jump from the rooftop towards the vacant plot and runaway comfortably after leaving his motorcycle at the spot. Similarly, in the unscaled site plan (Exh.Pk) which was got prepared by the investigating officer on the instructions of the complainant only two points were mentioned therein i.e. point No.A, where the Muhammad Waseem (injured) sustained injuries and point No.B where the motorcycle of the accused was standing and surprisingly, no reference to the place where the witnesses were standing was made in the same, hence, un-scaled site plan was of no help to the case of the prosecution.

6. So far as, the recovery of motorcycle, allegedly left by the accused at the place of occurrence is concerned. Suffice to say in this regard, that though motorcycle was seized by the investigating officer from the place of occurrence but no concrete evidence was presented to establish that it belongs to the accused, hence, recovery of motorcycle has no bearing effects upon the case of the prosecution. It is also important to note that both in complaint and the FIR it is specifically mentioned that the accused was armed with a churri at the eventful time, with which he inflicted injuries upon Muhammad Waseem (injured), however, it is observed that when the accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate for obtaining his physical remand, the police's request for remand was denied based on a conciliatory statement from the complainant. As a result therefore, the accused was sent to judicial custody, and no churri was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, so the absence of the churri, which was a crucial piece of evidence linking the accused to the crime, it further undermines the case of the prosecution. In this regard the reference can be made to the case reported as Allah Ditta and another v. The State and another (2024 YLR 1924) wherein this Court observed as under;- "Admittedly, no recovery of crime weapon could be effected from or on the lead of accused/appellants, thus, this element is yet another factor going against the prosecution and even otherwise, when the ocular account has failed, recovery even if had been effected, it being just of corroborative nature, could not have been considered and made basis for recording conviction."

7. As regard, motive, during trial, admittedly, the projected motive remained unproved as no legally admissible evidence was led by the prosecution in its support. Besides that there are conflicting statements of PWs regarding the canvassed motive as while appearing as PWI admitted that the alleged amount of Rs.10,000/- was not given in his presence nor did the injured tell him about that prior to the occurrence. Same is the case with Muhammad Waseem (injured/PW2) who during cross-examination, admitted that he did not remember the date when he gave Rs.10,000/- to the accused. Even during arguments, learned law officer, failed to draw the attention of this Court towards any evidence from which it may be held that motive was duly proved by the prosecution, so the motive loses its legal worth.

8. The epitome of above discussion is to the effect that the case in hand is arising out of a crime report which was registered with unexplained delay and there is a conflict between ocular account and medical evidence. From such aspects, a reasonable doubt emerges, the benefit of which cannot be withheld from the petitioner. In these circumstances, it does not appear safe to uphold the conviction of petitioner. Resultantly, while allowing Criminal Revision No.30985 of 2025, the conviction and sentence of Rajesh Masih (petitioner) awarded by learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30 Narowal and further affirmed by Additional Sessions Judge, Narowal vide judgment dated 02.05.2015 is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The petitioner is in custody, he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. JK/R-14/L Revision allowed.